Eldbjørg Løwer, Minister of Defence

Defence policy challenges for the year 2000

- Bringing realism into the defence debate with robust solutions

A Happy New Millennium to all. Contrived or not, there is something very special about entering a brand new millennium. Like me, many will have their own aims and wishes for what is to come. One of my most heartfelt wishes, for all of us involved in the work of the Defence Establishment, is that we can each help to raise the defence debate to the level that it deserves. We should be creating a defence organisation that can prove itself capable of carrying out definite tasks. I want to see an open debate which is both constructive and innovative, free-ranging and democratic, but which at the same time takes a realistic approach to the objectives and tasks that face Norway’s Armed Forces in this "new" age.

Like waiting for Godot

The anticipated results of our defence cutbacks have remained elusive throughout the 1990s. The restructuring of the Defence sector has progressed too slowly. If we look back to the last Long-Term Report for the Armed Forces, which was issued in 1993, we see a warning on exactly this point. At that time it was stated that if the planned savings could not be achieved, we would be forced to accept a defence structure quite different to that envisaged in the plan. And now here we are – 7 years later. The reasons for this, and the responsibility, lie at many different levels, but that is not the point. My point is that we cannot allow this to continue. We can no longer let things slide "while we are waiting for Godot" – we must act. The apparently unstoppable increase in operating costs is the most worrying aspect and it is this that has driven us into a corner where we have to continue to struggle to find a balance between tasks, aims and resources. To perpetuate these problems too far into the next decade would be wholly irresponsible and, as such, is simply not an option.

Both the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence are now addressing problems which will be of central importance to the next Long-Term Report and in the course of the coming year we shall be carrying out a number of studies of the kind of defence that we need for the future. The Chief of Defence is to make his professional military recommendations to the Ministry of Defence this summer. At about the same time the newly appointed Defence Policy Committee will submit its report. An exciting year 2000 is thus in prospect, a year in which the main focus will be on the future shape of our Armed Forces.

Double imbalance – operating costs and investment

There is much talk of the Armed Forces’ so-called "double imbalance". On the one hand, the Armed Forces are underfunded in relation to the structure of the defence organisation and the missions with which it is entrusted. On the other we devote too much money to the running of the organisation itself so that we are then unable to carry through all the investment that is needed.

Our defence capability has, on a number of occasions, been criticised as being governed by budgetary considerations rather than by actual requirements. On the one side it is said that a gap has arisen between the recommended, and politically approved, structure and the funds allocated to its implementation. But, turning the problem on its head, many would say that it is not the extent of the funding which is at fault but rather the structure itself and its stated objectives. But however we view it, the fact is that the gap between commitments and resources, and between operating costs and investment, has now reached the threshold of tolerable pain. As Minister of Defence, it is my responsibility to ensure that our defence forces can in future maintain a level of credibility that justifies the spending of some 24 billion kroner of taxpayers’ money every year, in addition to the cost of our participation in international operations. The fact that Norway must have a solid and credible military defence is not in question, but now that we can no longer reckon on budget increases year after year, we have to manage with the resources that we have and to take some unpalatable measures to make this possible.

We must identify the organisational structure that is best able to meet the demands of the broadest possible spectrum of today’s challenges. The result may involve major changes in the present structure. One important element in maintaining the credibility of the Armed Forces, and in enabling the Services to adapt to new tasks, is acceptance of the fact that we cannot allow our so-called district policy to drive the development of the Armed Forces. That is something we cannot afford, nor would it in fact serve our interests. The shaping of our defence forces must be carried through primarily on the basis of effectiveness and productivity. This applies not least to the various departments and agencies involved in the administration of defence materiel which, taken together, are responsible for administering some 60% of the defence budget and for the employment of around 7,000 people. It goes without saying that here too, and perhaps especially here, we must look hard to see whether scarce resources can be used to better advantage and for the benefit of the Armed Forces in a broader perspective.

If the legitimacy and credibility of the Armed Forces are to be sustained, we have to ask ourselves whether in fact the time has not come to sacrifice a number of "holy cows". Our defence organisation today is disproportionately large for the tasks it is required to discharge and it must therefore be slimmed down. The prime requirement is to preserve and strengthen the Armed Forces’ operational capability. The aim will be to achieve a good defence organisation capable of carrying out its missions well and in an appropriate way. A defence organisation which provides satisfying and secure employment for its personnel, combined with a more predictable future and a firmer understanding of the value of their contribution to society.

Working together for the best solutions

In the course of my visits to service units and establishments I have seen the high quality of much of the work being done. It is quite evident that tasks are approached seriously and responsibly. I have been surprised, however, by some of the attitudes that I have encountered at various levels. Firstly there are some in the defence organisation who appear highly sceptical of all the restructuring measures initiated by the Ministry. And what surprises me most is the way in which one and the same person can be highly sceptical with regard to two or three different proposals for increased efficiency without having read either the relevant White Papers or even their shortened versions. What is it that breeds this scepticism? Most of those I meet appear quite open-minded towards measures that can help to make the Armed Forces a satisfying workplace which is well adapted to the actual tasks to be carried out. It is my belief that the road ahead will remain long and hard while, even in defence circles, some continue to greet most proposals with scepticism. At the risk of repeating myself: I want to see an open and honest debate in which we work together to produce constructive proposals which we can then discuss. In the main we share common aims and we should work together towards these. To put it bluntly, if we are to achieve robust solutions for the future of our Armed Forces, then all those of us who work in Defence must ourselves contribute.

I also find it puzzling when I hear our traditions cited as being out of tune with, or even threatened by, the recent move towards adapting our forces for international operations and improved cost-effectiveness. Traditions form valuable building blocks but they can also be our worst enemy when it comes to development and constructive change. There are some who still see participation in international operations as being quite separate from our national defence tasks – but this is not so. It is not a question of our foreign policy aims competing with national interests where the activities of our Armed Forces are concerned. International operations help to ensure peace and stability in our part of Europe as well and are therefore very much in Norway’s national interest. Such forces as Norway may possess at any given time must, however, of course have the defence of our own nation as their first priority. This in no way conflicts with the requirement that Norway should make its contribution towards operations abroad under UN, OSCE, NATO or WEU auspices if the Norwegian authorities so decide. What we must focus on is how best to organise our defence forces in order to achieve the desired result.

Abroad and at home – the Armed Forces task force

Norway has for many years provided military forces as an active contribution to the prevention or resolution of international crises and conflicts. At the same time we have emphasised the need to uphold stability in our own part of the world and the importance of maintaining a credible national defence capability. Pursuing both these aims is highly demanding in terms of resources. Today’s security situation, however, allows these aims to be combined. We wish to establish a set of forces for use abroad, but forces which will also form a central element of our national defence capability. White Paper No. 38, which the Government put before the Storting in June last year, proposes measures to enable both these tasks to be fulfilled in a better way. To bring this about, we need to produce forces capable of reacting more rapidly and more flexibly to a wider spectrum of operational tasks than is the case today. This has to be combined with the ability to maintain over time a relatively extensive involvement in operations abroad, sufficient in terms of both quantity and quality to enable us to fulfil our current commitments. And we want to achieve all this within the framework of our existing defence structure. If we are to realise these aims, the elements of the task force for use abroad need to be identified and prepared in advance. It is for this reason that the White Paper recommends the establishment of an "Armed Forces Task Force for International Operations" which will provide both a wider range of options when a crisis situation arises and greater predictability in the planning of our involvement abroad.

Norwegian security and defence policy, in common with our policies in other sectors of society, has to adapt to changes in the international scene. We have made our choice regarding participation in NATO and NATO’s new strategic concept, and against this backdrop we have to assess any conflicts that may arise and consider Norway’s possible contribution to their resolution. The principal aim is to contribute to the limitation of conflicts where the risk of spreading is great and conflicts in which, for humanitarian or moral reasons or for the upholding of international law, there is a moral obligation to contribute. As I see it, we have a moral responsibility, based on respect for international law and human rights, to play our part in cases in which the consequences of not doing so may be much worse.

The European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI)

Norway has a special interest in the way steps are being taken to shape the future path of European development. Our own security is closely bound up with that of the EU and its members. The EU is currently engaged in a great deal of activity in the field of security and conflict resolution. Norway wishes to be involved in this work. One of the main challenges facing NATO relates to the technology gap that exists within the Alliance. There can be no doubt that the United States in particular possess both a technology base and a military strike power that are unique on a world scale. Nor can there be any doubt that Europe lags well behind in this respect. As already mentioned, work in Europe directed towards closing this gap is now under way. Norway’s positioning in relation to European collaboration in the field of security and defence policy is a matter of great importance for the future. It is vital that Norway should be able to play its part and so influence on an equitable basis the course of events within a new institutional framework.

Concluding remarks

All of us concerned with Norwegian Defence now face great challenges. Good solutions will inevitably mean some revision of our professional perspectives. Equally, both our political resolve and our negotiating powers will be taxed to the full in staking out the way ahead. But above all, success requires that we work together right across both professional and political boundaries – in an open and constructive debate which can provide the robust solutions that we need.

Whether or not we shall be able to maintain a credible defence capability into the next decade is conditional on our ability to make the necessary choices for the path ahead. Our Defence Establishment simply cannot continue to ride into the future on two horses, each heading in a different direction – and without the necessary feed for the journey. Our destination must be clear and we must keep it in view. As Minister of Defence, I will strive to ensure that our Armed Forces retain their relevance and that attention remains focused on the tasks with which society entrusts us and expects us to be able to fulfil. I want to see a defence organisation which has the strength and flexibility to meet whatever challenges the future may bring, whether they be national or international. A defence capability deeply rooted and anchored with broad popular support and functioning, as it should, as an element of our security policy. And last but not least, Norway will continue to have defence forces consisting of men and women who can take pride in their chosen profession.

Let the debate proceed!!